United States v. Kebodeaux
2013 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about United States v. Kebodeaux?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.[1]
Quick Facts United States v. Kebodeaux, Argued April 17, 2013 Decided June 24, 2013 ...
United States v. Kebodeaux | |
---|---|
Argued April 17, 2013 Decided June 24, 2013 | |
Full case name | United States v. Kebodeaux |
Docket no. | 12-418 |
Citations | 570 U.S. 387 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2496; 186 L. Ed. 2d 540; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4715 |
Case history | |
Prior | Kebodeaux was convicted of violating SORNA - W.D. Tex.; affirmed, 647 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2011); petition for rehearing en banc granted, 647 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2011); conviction overturned under the Wetterling Act, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1119 (2013). |
Subsequent | Conviction affirmed on remand, 726 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 2013). |
Holding | |
The Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was found to be constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The circuit court's decision was reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Concurrence | Roberts (in judgment) |
Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
Dissent | Scalia |
Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia (Parts I, II, and III–B) |
Laws applied | |
Necessary and Proper Clause; United States v. Sharpnack 355 U.S. 286 (1958); Smith v. Doe 538 U.S. 84 (2003); Carr v. United States 560 U.S. 438 (2010); Reynolds v. United States No. 10-6549, 565 U.S. ___ (2012) |
Close